Now that we’ve suffered, yet again, through the annual United Nations circus, has it occurred to anyone (other than New York City police officers) to question why we continue to tolerate the hypocrisy and waste of it all?

By anyone, I mean especially the officials and policy makers residing in the White House, State Department and elsewhere (including private institutions) who work the terrain of international affairs.

Few of us who learned of the United Nations as schoolchildren in the 1950’s can forget the hopeful vision with which its purpose and structure were set out. Unlike the League of Nations, it would not fail to maintain peace and improve the world. That’s because (a) we knew what had gone wrong with the League; (b) freedom had finally prevailed over tyranny; and (c) Eleanor Roosevelt was the UN’s stout supporter. Quick proof of its merit could be found in Korea and UNICEF.

The UN headquarters complex (thank you, Mr. Rockefeller) became an icon of the new age. Tourists marveled at its architecture, designed to project peace and progress with a confidence unimaginable only a decade or so before.

So, what became of its promise? For this piece, a review of six decades of U.N. achievements and disappointments would be, respectively, too short and too long. Suffice it to say that the corruption of the institution and its parasitic players resembles the imperial machinations of Hapsburg Europe on a stage with neither grace nor shame.

Partly this followed from the addition of a hundred or so more members as each became an independent and equal nation among nations. Excepting the veto privilege held by the five permanent Security Council members, the democratic ideal was pushed beyond usefulness: everyone is otherwise deemed equal regardless of size or supporting contribution. Consequently, only the politics of the place matters.

For too many members of its bloated bureaucracy, together with the swell ambassadors and diplomats they serve, the New York life sure beats Djibouti. Remember, not everyone takes indoor plumbing for granted. I would have said potable tap water but that’s inconsequential to the Perrier set. What it represents, I suspect, is no small inducement for rewarding more Syrians with jobs on, say, the staff of the UN Human Rights Commission.

And what does the U.S. receive in exchange for paying about 25 percent of the bill? A forum for hateful propaganda and connivance undreamed of by tyrants past. Why party in Potsdam when New York beckons – and welcomes? It’s also so much more convenient for spying.

Enough, then, should be enough. Our acceptance of dishonesty, disrespect and worse from the UN’s mendicant members has bought us little but justification for withdrawal. Since past efforts at UN reform have failed miserably, there’s hardly a prospect that another round of promises would work. Moreover, “reform” cannot deal with the structural defects of equality and faith in good will.

If we think it’s in our interest to have an institution such as initially contemplated for the UN, so be it. The time has come, however, to re-create it – just as the League had been refashioned rather than revived. America should not be timid about this: incorporate the worthwhile agencies that have proved able to serve legitimate world needs and create a forum for problem resolution by those nations capable of achieving something.

It’s not all that complicated. If something is broken and can’t be fixed, try something new. How about broadening NATO? Whatever, it’s plainly foolish to continue with what we have. If Libya, Venezuela and others object, let them pack and enjoy their UN in Mozambique or wherever else they relocate. We don’t need and should not want them.

Arnold Mazur is an attorney and business executive who retired in order, in his words, “to do nothing.” Occasionally, he writes.

About the Author:Arnold Mazur is a retired attorney and business executive who, defying the Arab boycott office, was first to establish in Israel a subsidiary of a major U.S. software company.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

It was the late Abba Eban who famously said that “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” In his time that was for the most part true, and it arguably worked for Israel’s benefit, particularly when Israel found itself in a tight diplomatic squeeze.

Now that we’ve suffered, yet again, through the annual United Nations circus, has it occurred to anyone (other than New York City police officers) to question why we continue to tolerate the hypocrisy and waste of it all?

Opponents of President Obama do not lack for reasons to criticize him or his administration. Not justifiably among them, however, would be the contention that Obama the candidate had misled the country regarding his intentions.

We need to learn from history. Once upon a time (nearly forty years but not so long ago, really) American foreign policy was being stymied, on every issue and continent, by a duplicitous Soviet Union, Confounded by the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy czar, Henry Kissinger, faced not so much crises that threatened America as murky messes that wouldn’t yield to unilateral resolution. Soviet partnership was needed but at best absent.

Former president Jimmy Carter’s controversial twining of Israel and the “apartheid” epithet created quite the fuss, as has the Biden construction affair and its aftermath of bloodying the Israeli nose. Unsurprisingly, if leaky reports are true, lurking in the background of both stories is the second-rate theorist Zbigniew Brzezinski, still hoping somehow to overcome the frustration of not being Henry Kissinger.